Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has chosen to go through an ethics trial, like the one lined up for New York Rep. Charles Rangel, rather than accepting charges made by an ethics subcommittee, a source familiar with the process tells POLITICO.

The back-to-back trials of two black lawmakers represent an unprecedented use of an ethics adjudication system that has rarely been used by House members accused of breaking ethics rules.

Waters's case revolves around allegations that she improperly intervened with federal regulators to help a bank that her husband owned stock in and on whose board he once served.

Waters denies any wrongdoing.

"Congresswoman Waters has chosen to go through an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing, rather than accept any of the counts from the investigative subcommittee," the source told POLITICO.

In layman's terms, that means she's going to trial.

The ethics committee already has its hands full reviewing charges that Rangel broke House rules and federal statutes by improperly using his office to raise money for an education center bearing his name, maintained four rent-stabilized apartments in New York, failed to report income from a Dominican rental property and underreported hundreds of thousands of dollars on legally required financial disclosure forms.

The Rangel case opened Thursday but won't truly get under way until the House returns from its summer recess in September.

POLITICO first reported earlier this week that the committee was expected to unveil its charges against Waters before leaving town for recess.

Her decision to go to trial appears to have postponed the release of the committee's formal charging document, called a "Statement of Alleged Violation."

If a panel of ethics committee investigators can prove charges against Waters to a separate subcommittee of lawmaker-jurors, the full ethics committee will recommend a punishment to the full House.

Texas Rep. Gene Green, a member of the panel that investigated Rangel, told reporters Friday the investigators had passed a recommendation of a reprimand — the lightest possible punishment — to the adjudicatory subcommittee.

The Waters case also presents a test of the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent body that takes complaints from the public and chooses which ones to forward to the House ethics committee.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have complained that the OCE has unfairly and disproportionately targeted them, and many have signed onto a legislative effort to de-fang the office.